The Above the Law weblog recently published an entry mocking a major law firm's hiring policies for "the fairer sex" in the decade predating Title VII. The "offending" firm is frank and unapologetic about its preference for male candidates, explaining:
If the paper records are the same, the man is given preference, barring some personality defect, on the grounds that being a man, he has probably had extra-curricular experience in the business world which will be of greater use to the firm than the experience open to most girls.
Read the 1950s memo snippet here.
As a tail-end baby boomer, I have not had to face the same struggles as did women who are more than ten years my senior. For that, I am continually grateful. It's easy to look back some 50-60 years and smirk about how "unenlightened" firms used to be. But perhaps we all should be more appreciative that those rules -- which were possibly progressive in their time -- allowed talented, capable women into the profession and paved the way for more "lady lawyers."
Memos like the one cited by Above the Law remind me not to minimize as mere GenY whining such challenges as crippling law school debt, gender equality, and achieving work-life balance. By focusing on the future of the profession, it may be possible to get to a point where practitioners are not defined first and foremost as "female attorneys" or "male attorneys," but simply as "attorneys".
No comments:
Post a Comment